• 1

    astroboy

    Their difference is just cosmetic and a show.

    What happened to Ron Paul?

    Why is there no news of the other parties who are holding debates now?

    These guys were and are different but mainstream media are intentionally ignoring them so their voices don't get heard! I don't know how the US can consider its self a democracy any more!?!

  • -1

    astroboy

    In most of the "non-democratic" countries (as defined by the US), the opposition party that is being suppressed by the government and is being supported by the US has a weaker voice in the public than the voices that are being ignored in the US media (like Ron Paul or those other parties). It is such a hypocrisy by the US to know its self as democratic and designate those countries as non-democratic.

    Just for the information of those who don't know, the Green Party's (one of other parties) candidates were arrested last week (search the news and you will see). If something like this had happened in any other (developing) country, the US would immediately call them undemocratic and apply some kind of sanctions to it!!!

    I just mean to give more evidence of how there is absolutely no difference between Obama and Romney when you consider how the truly different voices are being suppressed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • -4

    Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

    Interesting to see the poll results. Obama gets big numbers in Japan. Makes me wonder- if Obama and his economy were so great, why aren't more of his supporters still in the US and not in Japan?

    I met a typical Obama supporter at work. He's all for Obama's health care plan back in the States. However..... he was talking about his situation in Japan. Turns out he isn't actually paying for the Japanese national health care system, nor for the pension. He has 'private insurance' from a company overseas! When I asked about that hypocrisy, he couldn't answer, just sputtered and left the room.

  • 1

    SquidBert

    Obama has great support in almost all countries outside the US, one interesting exception is Pakistan.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

    Perhaps when you aren't exposed to the propaganda ehrm... I mean PR machines, the truth is easier to see?

  • 3

    JapanGal

    The electoral college makes a joke out of so many peoples votes. One person one vote for a true democracy. So as a republic, I find it annoying.

  • 3

    2020hindsights

    VRWC

    Makes me wonder- if Obama and his economy were so great, why aren't more of his supporters still in the US and not in Japan?

    It's because there are a lot of idiots in the US. Most of those idiots don't have passports.

    He's all for Obama's health care plan back in the States.

    America's heath care system is a joke. Any health care system that leaves tens of millions of people uninsured is failing. Obamacare, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction.

    The whole thing is that health care is insurance. And insurance only works if you can have sick and non sick people paying it. Most countries achieve this with a tax. With private schemes, as soon as you have health people opting out, insurers will want to narrow the payouts with pre-existing conditions clauses. Obamacare addresses these issues.

    He has 'private insurance' from a company overseas!

    That's fine, he has the option to pay for better insurance. Can't see the hypocrisy.

  • -7

    Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

    The hypocrisy is living in a country that HAS national health care, but not paying for it. Then turning around and demanding that his own country adopt that same system.

    Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against national health care, at least at a basic level. Over and above, people should be allowed to pay for whatever extra coverage they want. However, the US system as envisioned by President Obama is the worst combination of systems. The fact is that most Americans were satisfied with their health care BEFORE he started messing with it.

  • 1

    2020hindsights

    The hypocrisy is living in a country that HAS national health care, but not paying for it.

    If he doesn't pay for it, he won't receive it either. That's OK.

    Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against national health care, at least at a basic level.

    Under Romney, this won't exist.

    However, the US system as envisioned by President Obama is the worst combination of systems.

    Explain.

    The fact is that most Americans were satisfied with their health care BEFORE he started messing with it.

    Goes to my first comment - there are a lot of idiots in the US. In fact, the surprising thing is that the GOP have convinced many people to be against a health care system that will benefit them.

    Romney says that many people receive free health care at the emergency room. That doesn't work for chronic illnesses, which by the time a patient finally sees an emergency room will be when they die.

  • -2

    Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

    Explain? OK. A national plan should be, well, national. THere should be no place for private insurance companies in the national plan. They can, however, provide optional coverage above/beyond what is included. Plus, employers can choose what extra coverage (if any) they want to provide for their employees. Obama wants everyone to be at the mercy of insurance companies. Not surprising, since they are large contributors to his campaign. The current system is better than that.

    As for my friend, would you say the same thing in the US context? If a person doesn't want to participate in President Obama's plan, that's OK?

    Your argument is the classic leftist position. You think that the majority of people are, to use your word, "idiots". Therefore, they need people smarter than they are (such as yourself) to make decisions for them. The conservative position is the opposite. We believe that most people are basically sensible and will make sensible decisions for themselves and their families.

    CNN did a poll before Obama care, and found that more than 80% of Americans were satisfied with their health care. Do you mean to say that 8 in 10 Americans are idiots?!?

  • -1

    2020hindsights

    A national plan should be, well, national. THere should be no place for private insurance companies in the national plan. They can, however, provide optional coverage above/beyond what is included. Plus, employers can choose what extra coverage (if any) they want to provide for their employees.

    Well I agree with you on that. But that is 100% against what the GOP and Romney want. Talk about tax paying for health care and you'll be burned on the 'socialized medicine' stake in the GOP.

    Obama wants everyone to be at the mercy of insurance companies.

    I'm sure he would want a national system, but this was one of the compromises he had to make to get it to even fly.

    As for my friend, would you say the same thing in the US context? If a person doesn't want to participate in President Obama's plan, that's OK?

    Actually, I don't know anything about your friend. I know that I can't get out of paying into the national system, so I wonder how he is.

    CNN did a poll before Obama care, and found that more than 80% of Americans were satisfied with their health care. Do you mean to say that 8 in 10 Americans are idiots?!?

    Nope, I don't think that 80% of all people in the US are idiots. And out of that 8 out of 10, there are many that won't be better off (while they still have a job). But it is such an emotional debate that supporters of the status quo would be 'blind' to the fact they would be better off under Obamacare and haven't taken the time to find this out. They had already made up their mind.

    So those statistics make a lot of sense to me.

  • -5

    WilliB

    I am not surprised to see that the vast majority of JT participants are democrat voters... that much is obvious from the comments section.

    Personally I don´t care much what domestic policies the USers inflict on themselves. But how in the world anyone could vote for Obama after seeing the disaster of his Middle East policy enfold is beyond me. But I guess if you are a determined partisan, you filter your news input accordingly.

  • 1

    Thunderbird2

    I don't care who wins... those of us from other countries look at the nasty videos, arguments and bickering and think: these guys want to control the most powerful armed forces on the planet? Rather give a Chimp a machinegun than trust these two Muppets.

  • -9

    Serrano

    I see that in this JT poll, Obama has 66% to 17% for Romney and 17% couldn't care less.

    But just now on NHK Newswatch 9 I see that in the U.S. Romney is leading Obama 49% to 48%.

    Interesting.

    I mailed my absentee ballot last week. I'm not crazy about Romney but I'm certain he would do far less damage to the country than Obama and Biden, thus I voted for Romney and Ryan.

  • 12

    tkoind2

    I am American, voting for Obama. And against Romney.

    Why not for Romney? In addition to all the very good reasons to vote for Obama I offer the following.

    1. Romney's policies are left overs from the 80's.
    2. Romney would likely take us to war with Iran, another pointless war we don't need.
    3. Romney's ideas about women are medieval.
    4. Romney's social ideas about homosexuals are worthy of the Spanish Inquisition and not of 2012.
    5. Romney is an unabashed liar and has been caught out on it repeatedly.
  • 10

    Frungy

    As a non-U.S. citizen I don't get a vote, but I'd very much like to see Obama continue. Romney's an international relations disaster. Like it or not the U.S. is the deo-facto global government, and when Washington sneezes a hundred other countries reach for a tissue.

  • -10

    Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

    And yet again, a leftie (tkoind) demagogues the GOP position.

    Romney's ideas about women are reflected by the close to 50% of the population that is pro-life. He also has the radical idea that people should pay for their own birth control. Hardly "medieval".

    His ideas about gays reflect those of Barack Obama until about 6 months ago, yet I doubt you would have said the same about the President.

    There will be no war with Iran. At worst, a surgical strike or two and the thing is done.

    Romney is an unabashed politician and changes his views to suit the audience. Nothing unusual there, it's what politicians of all parties do.

  • 8

    Peter Payne

    While I like the focus on deficit reduction in this election, I am going with Obama because

    a) he competently executed 4 years in office with no scandals, no moral failures, no blowjobs in the Oval Office b) while he didn't focus on jobs enough, the economy has recovered nicely, and we're all doing okay c) he made good judgements with the US auto industry and things seem to be doing well. There are new American cars all over the place in California when I was there this summer d) he did outstandingly with regards to killing Obama, supporting change in Libya, supporting change in other Arab countries, all without killing any Americans e) Romney clearly is doing the same old "say anything to get elected," promising to balance the budget without saying how, etc. and I am not drinking the Kool-Aid. I believe that he had significant offshore money in Swiss bank accounts, which showed up on his 2009 1040s during the amnesty, which is why he won't release older tax returns. He's shifty, more than most politicians. He does not deserve to be President. f) if Romney is elected, he'll be the first president who never got drunk. He'll also be the first president to never have drunk Green Tea. Green Tea, because everyone knows that God put Green Tea on the earth to tempt good Mormons. Green Effing Tea.

    So, I am down with Obama, personally.

  • 2

    JTDanMan

    tkoind

    I am American as well, happily and enthusiastically supporting Obama. And would never vote for a Republican until, well, their party reverses its back@ss free-market fundamentalism, amoungst other yahoo policies.

    That said, your very good reasons to vote for Obama which you offered...

    Romney's [economic] policies are left overs from the 80's.

    Yeah, good soundbite, but in truth, its really much much worse. Reaganomics wasn't as bad as the current no-holds-barred free marker fundamentalism of today's Republican party. Case in point, David Stockton, Mr. Supply Side himself, thinks Ryan is an irresponsible nut-job.

    Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neoconconservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=0

    Romney would likely take us to war with Iran, another pointless war we don't need.

    I would argue Romney would allow himself to be taken into war with Iran. Romney seems to know little about foreign affairs. And seems to care even less. When it comes to foreign policy, Romney cannot lead, because he is an empty suit.

    Given his naivete and inexperience, he would likely be led around by his Advisors, 17 of 24 of whom are Bush Neocons.

    Romney's ideas about women are medieval.

    I think this is not true. If anything, Romney's personal ideas about women are very mid 20th century. And I have no idea what his real policies would be: would he be the left-of-center MA govenor, or the right wing nut job of the primaries...? Who knows? I think on this regard, Romney is a pragmatist. Which, given his party's position is not good news for women. Obama nailed it with: this is not the kind of advocacy women are looking forward.

    Romney's social ideas about homosexuals are worthy of the Spanish Inquisition and not of 2012.

    Hyperbolic nonsense. Tomás de Torquemada would never had vowed at any time to defend and expand the rights of gays and lesbians, which Romney did. Sure, he changed his tune, but that goes to your last point, and not Romney's supposed desire to torture the gay away, if we are to accept your characterization.

    Romney is an unabashed liar and has been caught out on it repeatedly.

    You got that right. It is not only that Romney lies so much, about just about everything. It is that he does it so fluidly, so effortlessly. Every time he switches, lies, obfuscates, and misrepresents just shows everyone what he really is:

    a completely cynical opportunist.

  • -7

    taro67

    The poll results so far are reflective of the liberal bias in the comment section. It is probably no surprise that many Americans who have an interest in Japan are of a mindset that government should control the economy and the social life in a nation. Socialist Japan is ripe for such people. And, yet, many foreigners in Japan would like to see Japan changed even more to suit their Utopian ideals. It is unsettling to many Japanese to have foreigners come here and complain about life in Japan when they are free to go home and to a nation which suits their tastes better. No one wants a guest in their house (many rather uninvited) to tell their host how the home should be managed.

    The irony is that the Japanese government and its welfare state, combined with its planned economy, is the major problem facing the nation. Europe is finding out that socialism only works for a limited amount of time or until there isn't enough money to make it feasible. America is on the same path. Japan has led the way. China is trying to find a way to escape their socialist failure while keeping the power in the hands of a few. At some point, all will understand that government is the most ill-suited organization to make for a vibrant and healthy society and a stable economy. Sadly, the cost of re-learning this lesson (it has never worked anywhere or any time in history) will be steep for all people regardless of their political bias.

    In that regard, America's election results will possibly shape the course of the world for the next generation. One path will be greater government control of life. Another path will be a refocus on personal responsibility and individuality.

    This is not to condemn anyone for their bias but just to add perspective to the importance of the election and so that people understand what they are advocating when they choose whom to support.

  • 2

    yabits

    I'm not crazy about Romney but I'm certain he would do far less damage to the country than Obama and Biden, thus I voted for Romney and Ryan.

    I would bet you used the same thinking in 2000 to choose George W. Bush over Al Gore, because you felt the competence, peace and prosperity of the Clinton years caused too much "damage" to the nation. Well, anyone can see where that got us. It's amazing how people who don't learn from their mistakes like to parade them in public.

    Romney is an unabashed politician and changes his views to suit the audience.

    Well, that means we don't know where he stands on anything. Sorry, but I can't see Ward Cleaver as president of the United States. Head of the local Elks Club, perhaps, but not the leader of my country.

    Finally, I believe that the seriously disproportional distribution of wealth in the USA is our most serious social and structural problem. My nation built a massive middle class despite (or because of) an extremely high marginal tax rate from the 1930s to the 1970s. It had the impact of "pulling up the ladder" when those rates were cut.

    The greatest US president of the 20th century, in my estimation, was FDR -- whom Winston Churchill called, "the man who saved western civilization -- and Romney is far, far down on the scale from that level of leadership ability. There's no other choice but to go with President Obama.

  • -12

    Serrano

    "the economy has recovered nicely and we're all doing OK"

    The majority of Americans disagree with that viewpoint.

    "Romney is an unabashed liar"

    What lies did he tell? Do you have a list?

  • 7

    2020hindsights

    Serrano

    "Romney is an unabashed liar"

    What lies did he tell? Do you have a list?

    Yes. There are many. Here is one:

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/170623/romneys-seven-biggest-debate-lies

  • 2

    BertieWooster

    It doesn't matter who "wins."

    Anyone in this position says and does what their "advisors" tell them to do.

    In other words just a puppet.

  • -8

    Serrano

    2010 - Some of Romney's "lies" in your list appear to be just differences of opnion, like the Keystone oil pipleline won't create jobs. But Romney's lies pale in comparison to Obama's whoppers, which are bigger than Burger King makes:

    Mitt Romey raised home nursing fees 8 times

    We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system

    Romney and Ryan will gut Pell grants for low-income college students

    You didn't build that

    If you like the healthcare plan you have, you can keep it

    Obamacare will not raise the deficit one dime

    Obamacare is not a new tax

    I could go on and on and on...

  • 1

    2020hindsights

    We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system

    That's completely true.

    Romney and Ryan will gut Pell grants for low-income college students

    Yep.

    You didn't build that

    Don't really agree with Obama on that one. Fair point.

    If you like the healthcare plan you have, you can keep it

    That's actually true. It'll cost you though.

    Obamacare will not raise the deficit one dime

    True.

    Obamacare is not a new tax

    Technically it's not. But it's the same thing. And it's a good thing.

    I could go on and on and on...

    Never heard him say that. ;-)

    But Romney is a serial liar:

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/false/

  • -3

    BertieWooster

    Surely anyone put in the position of President is going to be, well, careless of the truth.

    He (or she) cannot please everybody.

    There's bound to be a conflict between his own policy and purposes (assuming he has them), those of his "advisors" and vested interests and of the people he is (on paper anyway) supposed to represent.

    Try Googling "Reagan lies," "Bush lies," "Clinton lies," "Gerald Ford lies," "GW Bush lies," or "Obama lies."

    They all do it.

  • -6

    RomeoRII

    The majority of these pollsters who "hope" Obama wins next week obviously are not from America. Otherwise, they would know that they are ignoring a very very important group. The evangelicals are pissed about the religious freedoms being taken by Obama. Here in the States, this group is huuuuuge.

    Bye, bye Obama.

    RR

  • -4

    RomeoRII

    Early voting here in the states has Mr. Romney 52 percent - 45 percent over Obama:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/29/Gallup-Shock-Romney-Up-7-with-early-voters

    We are now officially one week away from Carter vs. Reagan 1980, Part 2

    RR

  • 0

    DentShop

    Two gutless clowns, each worse than the other in so many respects.

    Come on America - we can do better than these two, surely??

  • 0

    DentShop

    We are now officially one week away from Carter vs. Reagan 1980, Part 2

    Is Breitbart blogging from beyond the grave now?

    Sorry to burst that bubble Romeo, but unfortunately, Obama is going to sweep this like San Fran swept the Tigers. Fortunately however, Romney will not win.

  • 2

    JTDanMan

    Bertie

    There are lies, damn lies. And Republicans.

  • -5

    RomeoRII

    Governor Romney has a record of success, understands business and the economy, and has proven he can work with democrats.

    Obama has no success of note, doesn't understand business and the economy, and can't even work with his own party (his past two attempts to pass a budget didn't even get a single democrat vote). His "stimulus" was nothing to help the economy (i.e., "shovel ready jobs that he admitted didn't exist) while driving our national debt and deficit to record levels.

    Time to let 'em go.

    RR

  • 3

    amerijap

    If Republicans had a better candidate --at least as better as Reagan and Eisenhower, and not like W or Nixon, I would not hesitate to vote for him. Too bad Romney is mediocre at best. His habitual flip-flopping and his terrible choice of running mate, including Ryan budget plan that hits hard by many economists and an attempt to privatize social security--which is exactly the scheme W did at the cost of tax cuts for wealthy people in the past-- convince me they will unlikely make much difference than W or current administration.

  • 0

    BertieWooster

    JTDanMan-san,

    Yes, lies, lies, lies.

    Agreed.

    Personally, I don't think Democrats and Republicans have much to do with it.

    Whoever gets in is going to be more or less a puppet for the vested interests that run him via their "advisors."

    Hardly much point voting, is there?

  • 5

    Victoria Maude

    Romney's ideas about women are reflected by the close to 50% of the population that is pro-life. He also has the radical idea that people should pay for their own birth control. Hardly "medieval".

    Okay, I'm really tired of this logic being thrown around. 50% of people being pro-life does not mean it is okay to get rid of this right for the other 50%. I'm in favor of abortion rights because abortions will happen no matter how illegal you make them, so I'm pro-life in the sense that I believe that women who get abortions should still be alive after the procedure. The opposite of pro-life is not pro-death. I am not pro-abortion. I don't think I could personally ever get one, but I've also never been in the position where I'd have to make that choice. It's all well and good to be pro-life, but keep the law as it is. No-one likes having an abortion, but sometimes, it happens. Your morality is not everyone's morality.

    Also, why shouldn't birth control be covered? Viagra is. Before you start saying that Viagra can treat various medical conditions, so can birth control. I knew girls on birth control back in junior high school. Not because they were having sex, but because it helped to control acne breakouts, ovarian cysts, endometriosis, all sorts of conditions. If you don't want to be on birth control, don't take it. Just because birth control is called birth control doesn't mean that that's all that it does. If men get Viagra covered, I don't quite see why it doesn't go the other way.

  • -2

    Serrano

    "Two gutless clowns"

    "Fortunately Romney will not win"

    Unfortunately the other gutless clown will win, right, DentShop?

  • -4

    Serrano

    "Gallup poll... early voting... Ronmey 52%, Obama 45%"

    Gallup must be in the tank for Romney, heh heh.

  • 0

    Willem

    I don't care who wins... those of us from other countries look at the nasty videos, arguments and bickering and think: these guys want to control the most powerful armed forces on the planet? Rather give a Chimp a machinegun than trust these two Muppets.

    +1

  • -2

    BertieWooster

    Thunderbird2

    Thank you for the voice of sanity:

    I don't care who wins... those of us from other countries look at the nasty videos, arguments and bickering and think: these guys want to control the most powerful armed forces on the planet? Rather give a Chimp a machinegun than trust these two Muppets.

    Exactement, mon vieux!

  • 2

    DentShop

    Unfortunately the other gutless clown will win, right, DentShop?

    Thats exactly what I wrote, thanks for repeating me.

    Yes, America will give a sorry excuse for a President another chance. Why have the past two decades not delivered a decent President and not even a decent nominee?

    Clinton - rubbish, Dole - rubbish, Bush II - rubbish, Gore - rubbish, Kerry - rubbish, Obama - rubbish, McCain - rubbish, Romney - rubbish.

  • -1

    Serrano

    Good grief, Dent, who do you think is NOT rubbish?

  • -1

    Fadamor

    LOL. So based on this poll if only people with an interest in Japan were to vote, Obama would win re-election by a landslide. Considering other polls have the election MUCH closer, I think we don't count as a significant demographic. :-)

  • -6

    DentShop

    I think we don't count as a significant demographic

    Most Westerners in Japan are university "educated", left-leaning, politically-correctly conditioned, cry baby losers - and therefore Democrat supporters. Like blacks, this group will never vote Republican and are therefore (like blacks) unloved by either party. Insignificant? More like irrelevant.

  • 0

    cleo

    Rather give a Chimp a machinegun than trust these two Muppets.

    They tried that last time... the results were not pretty.

    Most Westerners in Japan are university "educated", left-leaning, politically-correctly conditioned, cry baby losers - and therefore Democrat supporters. Like blacks, this group will never vote Republican

    Most Westerners in Japan are not US citizens and therefore will never vote either Democrat or Republican.

    Whoever wins, America will continue to have a gun-totin', war-oriented, religion-slanted, significantly right-of-centre government with little prospect of improvement. I suppose Obama as the devil we know is preferable to the Romney devil we don't, but I voted Couldn't Care Less.

  • -2

    Fadamor

    Most Westerners in Japan are university "educated", left-leaning, politically-correctly conditioned, cry baby losers - and therefore Democrat supporters. Like blacks, this group will never vote Republican and are therefore (like blacks) unloved by either party. Insignificant? More like irrelevant.

    This poll was issued to readers of JT - some of whom (like me) do not live in Japan. As Cleo points out, the people whose opinion would matter the most to the question posed in the poll are but a minority of JT readers. The odds of the other JT readers making an informed decision are slim. Despite that, the majority have managed to cast a vote against the candidate who refuses to answer questions.

    Romney promises a huge tax cut and corresponding spending cut (except for the defense department, naturally), but when reporters ask WHICH programs would be facing these huge cuts if he becomes President, the man does not answer. Reporters have had to fall back on previous "stump speeches" that Romney has given for clues on what he plans to target in his cuts. In one such speech he said that Federal organizations like FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) were incredibly wasteful and could be much better managed by the individual states. As the largest storm ever to hit the American Northeast approached, Romney was asked by reporters if Sandy had changed his views on FEMA and the man refused to answer the question. I guess you can't very well answer honestly when either you're going to alienate all those voters who believed your past speeches, or alienate the millions who are going to be relying on support from FEMA after the storm hits.

    Another thing Romney can't seem to answer except in a vague way: His "tax cut" only looks at reducing taxes through massive cuts in Federal spending. His spending cuts will be mainly through the closure of Federal organizations and moving them to the state level. He has no answer to how the states are supposed to fund these organizations without raising STATE taxes - which would naturally wipe out any perceived tax "cut" that a citizen experiences. His ONLY response in regards to moving the functions to the state level is that the states would somehow be able to run the organizations "much more effeciently and with less waste".

    Yeah, let's replace the bureaucracy involved in FEMA (for example) with FIFTY copies of the bureaucracy involved in a State FEMA (I guess that would make it SEMA?). That sounds REAL efficient and not wasteful at all!

  • -2

    TigermothII

    JTDan:

    Romney seems to know little about foreign affairs.

    I'm just curious what, before being elected, a junior senator from Illinois really knew about foreign policy. Name some examples that gave him the vast foreign policy experience he obviously possessed given your remarks.

    Given his naivete and inexperience, he would likely be led around by his Advisors

    Again, fill me in on how much experience President Obama - the community organizer and briefly attorney had in being President. I ask this not really in a smart-alec sort of way, but to make such arguments your candidate would need to have had vastly more experience prior to coming to office. I would contend he did not. By your argument logic then Mr. Obama should not have won the last election due to inexperience.

  • -1

    TigermothII

    Taro67 - brilliant post, and nothing else need be said.

  • -2

    TigermothII

    I would bet you used the same thinking in 2000 to choose George W. Bush over Al Gore, because you felt the competence, peace and prosperity of the Clinton years caused too much "damage" to the nation.

    I don't think that's fundamentally true. I don't think there are even that many on the left that still think Al 'Jabbah the Hut' Gore would have really been a great president. Too one-dimensional and single-minded. Oh, I'm sure you would all conclude much better than Bush, but still I don't think he's seen as a great option anymore. Just as I don't think a great many conservatives think Bill Clinton was necessarily that horrible. I didn't mind Bill. Sure he should have kept it in his pants while on duty, but that's a liberal failing typified by your gods - the Kennedy's. And it's argued that the beginnings of the housing crisis began under his reign. I would also add that his dismantling of the intelligence services brought about a failure to fully recognize the impending danger that was 911 - although again I believe a good many liberals think the whole attack was a conservative conspiracy, so I doubt you would agree there either.

  • -1

    TigermothII

    Finally, I believe that the seriously disproportional distribution of wealth in the USA is our most serious social and structural problem.

    Yes, but no matter how you want to dice this up, or what clever words you put around it, a re-distribution of wealth is plain and clear socialism. It isn't what MY country was founded upon. And I'm not one of the rich saying that to protect my own; I hardly make ends meet. But it's not the fault of the guy in the Brook's Brothers suit, it's my own because rather than join all the clubs and get stellar grades at university, I chose to drink myself silly, get high and change my major to journalism so that I could write, which I enjoyed. There is no great evil in wealth that the left would like to paint. Rather there is evil in all facets of society. But there are three types of folks: those that do, those that won't, and those that can't. But in the end, blaming those that do because you either will not or cannot is rather pointless. Those that do create the opportunities that made our country a great democracy rather than some socialist hovel or some communist junk-hole like the Soviet Union. We enjoy the greatest standard of living in the world because of those 'evil rich men' that built this country.

    Winston Churchill loved FDR because he supported Britain and her war effort when no one else could (lend-lease) and provided the might of the American economy which in the end won the war and saved Britain. I would argue such things that the vaunted 'Few' who fought the Battle of Britain, those in the resistance, etc played just as huge a part. But the point being that Churchill was a staunch anti-communist and anti-socialist. His admiration for FDR was because of the man's courage, character, integrity and support - not his socialist policies.

  • -3

    TigermothII

    Yes. There are many. Here is one:

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/170623/romneys-seven-biggest-debate-lies

    I hate when people do this - quoting a liberal media source does not make it so. It's like me quoting Fox News to prove a conservative point. Depending upon your leanings you can find data to support just about anything, but that doesn't make it true.

  • 5

    yabits

    It's like me quoting Fox News to prove a conservative point. Depending upon your leanings you can find data to support just about anything, but that doesn't make it true.

    Just this week in Ohio, Romney announced to crowds that Chrysler was moving "all" (then "some") of its Jeep production to China, and taking Ohio jobs with it. The lie was so egregious that the CEO of Chrysler had to go on record saying the report was completely false. The Jeep plant in Ohio would be adding jobs and that production for North America was there to stay. (Chrysler is building a plant in China, but those vehicles will serve markets in Asia.)

    Now, did Fox news report that as a lie? If not, then they are not fit to be called news source.

  • 0

    NeverSubmit

    Only two choices?

    JT is framing the debate

  • 0

    2020hindsights

    Yes, but no matter how you want to dice this up, or what clever words you put around it, a re-distribution of wealth is plain and clear socialism. It isn't what MY country was founded upon.

    Umm, actually it was. Folks were escaping the class systems of Europe.

  • 2

    2020hindsights

    I hate when people do this - quoting a liberal media source does not make it so. It's like me quoting Fox News to prove a conservative point. Depending upon your leanings you can find data to support just about anything, but that doesn't make it true.

    Ah, you can quote Fox news all you like if you only quote facts and not opinion. Read the article and if you dispute any of the facts, comment on it. It's pretty balanced and when they make assumptions they explain how and why. At that stage you could disagree. But don't just dismiss it.

  • 1

    globalwatcher

    RomeoRIIOct. 30, 2012 - 08:43PM JST

    The evangelicals are pissed about the religious freedoms being taken by Obama.

    They are American Talibans imposing their belief and values to others who are not Christians. I believe in Separation of Church and State. These right wingers cannot push their belief and values to someone else's throught who are not Christians.

    RomeoRIIOct. 30, 2012 - 11:59PM JST

    Early voting here in the states has Mr. Romney 52 percent - 45 percent over Obama:

    Sounds like you are not catching up with the most recent data. . Obama will take over many swing states.

    RomeoRIIOct. 31, 2012 - 02:58AM JST

    Governor Romney has a record of success, understands business and the economy, and has proven he can work with democrats.

    Oh pleeeeze. He is a snake sales man. Mr. Romney is a man of multicolors.

    Bye, bye, Romeo.

  • 1

    globalwatcher

    DentShopOct. 31, 2012 - 11:44PM JST

    Most Westerners in Japan are university "educated", left-leaning, politically-correctly conditioned, cry baby losers - and therefore Democrat supporters. Like blacks, this group will never vote Republican and are therefore (like blacks) unloved by either party

    Well, some true liberals are very comfortable under their skin to be who they are because they are givers, . They are not afraid of reaching out to others. I have not seen any true liberals who are not highly educated. .
    These true liberals including JFK are hard working people with higher education unlike you have described above.

  • -1

    Elvensilvan

    I'm not an American myself, but here are some things that I would consider if I would vote for those two:

    • Obama can run the government alone, and with much less contoversies than other past presidents
    • Mitt has to have his advisors, but I doubt that they have a common goal to work together with
    • Mitt doesn't care about those who can hear him talk, and what their feelings and reactions might be
    • Mitt has made several unfriendly comments while he was campaigning ... what more when he becomes president?

    Just my two yens' worth

  • -1

    Serrano

    "Obama can run the government alone"

    This is foreboding.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    If Romney wins then expect George W. Bush economy 2.0.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • 営業/建設機械  

    営業/建設機械  
    MB Japan 株式会社、埼玉県
    給与:給与要相談 歩合制 給与参考例・・・2013年度営業職月給平均 45万円  
  • TOEICインストラクター

    TOEICインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,000円 相談可
  • TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター

    TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,500円 相談可
  • 海外留学担当者

    海外留学担当者
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:月給 25万円 ~ 35万円 相談可
  • PR and Communication Specialist

    PR and Communication Specialist
    Italian Chamber of Commerce in Japan、東京都
    給与:給与についての記載なし

More in Poll

View all

View all